Is War Necessary? – Part II

My article "Is War
Necessary?" provoked a number of email comments and criticisms. Here are
some of them, together with my responses.

"Either you live in a
cocoon or are a physical and/or moral coward!!"

Would you like me better if I said I had beat up two dozen men and a
handful of women?

"Sometimes you have to
accept the burden. Some responsibilities can not be wished away. That is
what the liberals do, they run from responsibility, hoping that by being
'nice' people, the big bad wolf will not bang on their door. . . .

"You liberals either don't
understand history or don't want to. Either way, you end up being
physical and moral cowards."

You have me mixed up with someone else.

Unlike liberals, and unlike you, I have no faith in government. It can't
run the health-care system, doesn't educate our children well, and it
certainly doesn't keep us safe from your "big bad wolf."

As for "being physical and moral cowards": If it's cowardly not to want
to see innocent people killed, I guess I'm a coward. I'm not brave enough to
taunt the villain and dare him to kill a bunch of other people.

If you want to go over to the Middle East and fight for "Iraqi Freedom,"
that's your business. But by staying at home, eating well, watching TV, and
earning a decent living — while men, women, and children are getting killed
in Iraq — it is you who won't "accept the burden." It is you who are
"wishing away responsibilities." It is you who is "running from
responsibility." It is you who are the physical and moral coward, while
playing the part of the courageous hero.

I hope you don't go off to fight in the Middle East. But I also
want every American there to come home.I want to see America live in
peace and liberty. And big government doesn't provide either.

Switzerland

"You misunderstand and
misuse history. Switzerland has not had a war in lots of years because
every Swiss is armed, is in the armed services until age 40, and shoots
to kill anyone that violates their sovereignty.

"They are at all times
prepared to defend themselves. And, being such a small country, even
Hitler and Stalin and his successors felt that the cost of invasion was
not worth the gain.

"Wake up, smell the coffee
and live in the real world, not some idealistic place in your warped
mind and some place that has never existed."

Since I said in my article "They've devised ingenious defenses to
demonstrate that, while Switzerland is not unconquerable, the cost of
conquest would be intolerable to the conqueror," I'm not sure what you're
complaining about. As a matter of fact, I lived in Switzerland for six years
and am quite familiar with its defense system. But notice that it is focused
on defense, not offense — as the
U.S. system is.

"One important fact not
reported by Mr. Browne. Switzerland became a repository for Nazi gold
during World War II as well as valuable artifacts and paintings. When
Germany lost the war, Switzerland simply kept the gold and other
valuable items and founded a banking system that would not have been
possible otherwise.

"In addition, Switzerland
did cooperate with Nazi Germany during the war and manufactured critical
war materiel for the German war machine for which they were paid
handsomely.

"Switzerland has kept out
of conflict by being underhanded in its dealings and not because of any
moral commitment.

"Sorry to burst your
bubble."

Since I said in my article "And they've made themselves an indispensable
trading partner to any country that otherwise might see some advantage in
invading Switzerland," I'm not sure what new information you think you're
providing.

The Swiss banking system was founded hundreds of years ago. Laws were passed in
the mid-1930s to protect Jewish accounts from being investigated or
confiscated by the Nazis; otherwise, the system remained as it always had
been. The only gold the Swiss bankers retained after the war was gold for
which claimants had no way to prove their ownership; you can't expect a
banker to give someone's gold to anyone who showed up at the door asking for
it, but who had no evidence of ownership.

And I don't see anything underhanded in dealing openly with Germany and
Britain during the war. Not joining your side doesn't make someone underhanded,
just discriminating.

The last time I looked, the bubble was still intact and unburst.

Swiss Profiteering

"One point about
Switzerland. The reason they never go to war is because that is the
enclave that the world's bankers use to house all the world's (their)
money. And they are the ones that fund all the wars, and both sides of
the wars. War is very profitable for them and keeps countries unstable,
while they remain in full charge through finances which is power."

I understand what you're saying, but Switzerland doesn't fund wars. The
Swiss government foreign aid program is infinitesimal — much too small to have any effect on
anything. And the banks are privately owned. No private bank is going to
lend money to both sides of a war (as our government sometimes has). A bank can't afford to lend money to the loser who may not repay his loans.

Swiss & American Defenses

"I'm curious about two
points.

"1. Mr. Browne stated
'They've [the Swiss] devised ingenious defenses to demonstrate that,
while Switzerland in not unconquerable, the cost of conquest would be
intolerable to the conqueror.' What are these devices and/or where could
I learn more about Switzerland's defense policies?

"2. He also wrote: 'In the
few cases that America has been attacked, it's because our politicians
were trying to dictate to other countries.' What were we doing to Japan
to provoke the attack on Pear Harbor?"

Unfortunately, not a lot has been written in the English language about
Switzerland's ingenious World War II defense policies. And I don't have time to try to remedy the
lack of material. But I can give two examples.

During World War II, the Swiss government allowed the Nazis to pass
through the Swiss Alps to resupply troops in Italy — a very valuable route
for the Nazis. The Swiss mined critical spots and
told the Nazis that the Swiss would close the supply lines by blowing them
up the moment the Nazis
started any funny business.

Second, the Swiss made a deal with the Nazis that allowed the Germans to buy
machine tools from Swiss companies —
but only on condition that Swiss boats be allowed to carry equipment for
delivery to the British down the Rhine River to the North Sea, unimpeded by
the Nazis.

As for the other question, the Roosevelt administration browbeat the
Japanese for two years before the Pearl Harbor
attack — demanding that the Japanese
give up their colonies and conquests in China and East Asia. The Japanese
were absolutely no threat to the United States (just like Iraq in 2003), but Roosevelt made it clear
to his subordinates (who later reported his views in their memoirs) that he wanted to lure
the Japanese into "firing the first shot" so that America could get into the
war against Hitler. (The Japanese and Germans had a mutual defense treaty.)

I don't know of a single historian today who believes the Pearl Harbor
attack was either unprovoked or a surprise. The only argument is over
whether Roosevelt was right to bully the Japanese into attacking, in order
to rally the American people to support U.S. entry into the war.

Predictions

"The war has largely been a success,
especially when compared with pre-war predictions made by Harry."

I'm not aware of any pre-war predictions I made. If I've forgotten some,
you're free to remind me. But don't confuse me with anyone else.

Pandering to the Crowd?

"Going against the war is
bad for the Libertarian Party. . . . what matters is the
tremendous number of Bush supporters who are upset with his domestic
agenda. The Patriot Act, his propensity to spend, and the prescription
drug entitlement are the first that come to mind.

"I don't think your going
to get a lot of Dean supporters; they will support the Green (communist)
Party, or any of the other leftist running for the Democratic
nomination, if he does not make it. Anti-war rhetoric may catch their
ear, but once they learn of the Libertarian position on government,
taxes and guns, they will switch us off."

If we go along with the war hawks, how can we ever expect the war
mentality to recede? Someone has to stand up and point out the
obvious — that the Bush doctrine
has caused tens of millions more people worldwide to believe America is a bully,
encouraging more people to support the terrorists.

Maybe we couldn't stop the Iraqi War. But pointing out that politicians
lie and that war isn't necessary may cause a few more people to be skeptical
the next time — when the
President (either Bush or Kerry) is trying to build support for attacking Syria, Iran, or someone
else.

We can't determine the truth of a proposition by the number of people it might
appeal to. I'm not saying what I think might appeal to Dean supporters. If
you really think I am, you don't understand libertarian principles.

Comparing Countries

"You said, 'After one
apparently necessary fight to extricate itself from British rule, it
found itself in the best neighborhood possible.'"

"I don't think my life
would be any worse off today if Britain still ruled the United States.
The British people are not any less free than the American people are
today. So I think that war didn't matter either. In fact I would rather
live in Britain today than the United States."

When your own government is out of control, almost any other country can
seem to be more attractive. However, I don't think you'd find Britain to be
any freer than America (or even as free).